**Source:** Lenin Collection XV, p. 44
**Date:** June 13, 1904

## N. K. KRUPSKAYA — TO MEMBERS OF THE SOUTHERN BUREAU OF THE CC*

**June 16** [1904. Geneva.]

Dear Comrades! We received your letter no. 9; our letter of June 1st apparently did not come through—the chemistry let us down; this is already the second place we've heard that a letter didn't come through.

★ ***

[Tomorrow the Council.] [I repeat what I've already written.] Boris arrived and brought a reprimand to Lenin from the CC for having spoken in favor of a congress at the Council and for conducting agitation for a congress. The absurdity of the reprimand stands out especially clearly, because Lenin spoke at the Council before he learned the opinion of the other CC members, and as soon as he learned this opinion, he submitted his (temporary) resignation from the Council (the CC did not accept the resignation), but considered himself entitled to write his opinion about the congress as a party member. Nil delivered an ultimatum: either you cease agitation for the congress, or half of the CC will resign. The motives—agitation for the congress will irritate the minority, they will establish their own transport, etc. Boris speaks on behalf of the CC on the grounds that...

Boris arrived with full powers from the CC to be its sole representative abroad, i.e., to send people, conduct negotiations, etc. He arrived in a very belligerent mood, indignant that Lenin is conducting agitation for the congress, brought him a reprimand from the CC for this, etc. But, having begun to act as the sole representative, he immediately blundered—as a result, a "treaty" was concluded by which he obligates himself in all actions undertaken in the name of the CC to act only by mutual agreement with the other CC member here—Lenin. Gradually the rough spots are smoothed over, and relations with Boris become good. But in Russia they're making a mess of it—the one who was removed, and the one who submitted his resignation, but then took it back, so that the balance would tip, thanks to his vote, to the side of the Tolstoyans.

Thanks to Tolstoyan tactics, they let Petersburg and Moscow slip through their fingers. Although very good workers were sent to Petersburg, the minority won't let them into the Committee. By the way, these are not the sort of people who can be pushed aside; they'll get theirs.

Today the Council. Boris and Lenin will speak in unison. Have you seen no. 66? Plekhanov there demands that the CC renounce Lenin. The question is posed so crudely that the result will be the opposite. We have grounds to think that the CC will express itself not as Plekhanov would like, and besides, Plekhanov's letter provokes such an outburst of indignation that angry letters have poured into *Iskra* for publication—there are some very successful ones...

Please send us a copy of the pamphlet on taxes; we only have pieces, and the pamphlet seems good. We received your pamphlet on the congress. Who wrote it? Although there are some inaccuracies in it, it is written very well, passionately, clearly.

We send our greetings.

## 223. 18244

# PROTOCOLS OF MEETINGS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE R.S.-D.R.P. 
## THIRD (?) SESSION.¹

**[June 13 (May 31)] and [June 18 (o)] 1904. [Geneva.]**

## I.
## FIRST SESSION.

**[June 13 (May 31), 1904. Geneva.]**

Plekhanov, as Chairman, declares the session open.

Lenin brings a proposal to add to the list of questions on the agenda another question raised by the Polish Socialist Party (P.P.S.) regarding the desirability of convening a conference of representatives of the R.S.-D.R.P. and the P.P.S. to discuss the foundations and conditions of joint struggle of both parties.

Martov notes that the proposal from the P.P.S. is included in the first question to be discussed now.

Plekhanov proposes to proceed to the discussion of the first question on the agenda—on the inter-party conference—and explains that one of the Finns has approached him with a proposal to organize an inter-party conference of representatives of all revolutionary and oppositional parties in Russia—Russians, Latvians, Poles, etc.—in order to jointly draft a manifesto against the war. According to the Finns' project, the venue of the congress could be Paris. This proposal was probably made not without consultation with the SR's. Guede and Lafargue, among others, have taken up this matter, and they apparently succeeded in greatly interesting the Finns in their project. The Finn who made the proposal has now left for Stockholm, but will probably soon return, and we will have to give him a definitive answer—can we accept his proposal, and if so, on what conditions.

**Martov.** The proposal from the Finns is not the only attempt to find common ground that could unite the revolutionary and oppositional parties in Russia. Similar attempts have been made by "Liberation" and the SR's, but we must approach all these attempts very cautiously. It is important to outline in advance the framework within which the discussion at the proposed conference can take place. There are, properly speaking, two proposals—one modest proposal from the Finns and a second proposal emanating from the P.P.S. We need to take completely different positions toward these two proposals. Accepting the first proposal—which has in view agreement on a particular question—we must reject any thought of a permanent conference of an organizational character between social-democrats and non-socialist fractions. The example of the Georgian conference confirms this thought. Thus, I think it would be appropriate to accept in principle the Finns' proposal for a preliminary conference, but first we should try to organize a conference of representatives of the Russian s.d. party, the Bund, "Proletariat," and Polish s.d.'s. The Bund has already shown initiative of this kind, but it seems to me that it would be more convenient for us to take this initiative upon ourselves.

**Lenin.** Will the Council wish to read the P.P.S. proposal?

**Plekhanov.** Yes, that would be desirable.

**Lenin** (reads). "The Polish Socialist Party has always considered it necessary to have close rapprochement between the Polish and Russian socialist camps in order to achieve greater success in the struggle against the common enemy—tsarism. Unfortunately, until now such rapprochement has not been possible, which has created a series of inconveniences in practical activity for both sides. With this in view, we joyfully welcome the restoration of the R.S.-D.R.P. as a consolidated whole, with central institutions responsible for all manifestations of its activity, since this gives us the opportunity to take the first step on the path toward realizing the goal long since outlined by us. For us it is clear that the prolonged absence of proper relations between us and you has given rise to a whole series of mutual misunderstandings and rough spots, which must be eliminated and smoothed over before we proceed to the final regulation of the desired agreement. Therefore, our Central Workers' Committee has decided to address you with a proposal to convene in the near future abroad a conference in which delegates of your party would participate to discuss with our three delegates the foundations and conditions of joint struggle of both parties. The results of this conference could serve as the basis for a future agreement between the appropriate institutions of the R.S.-D.R.P. and the P.P.S.—Awaiting a possible speedy answer, etc."

In response to this letter, the CC addressed the P.P.S. with a request to provide more detailed information about what kind of conference, from representatives of which institutions, when and where the P.P.S. is projecting. Besides, he asked to inform how the P.P.S. would regard the participation of Polish s.d.'s in the conference. The P.P.S. answered us with the following letter:

"Dear Comrades! We were somewhat surprised by your letter, as it seems to us that the answers to the questions it contains are already contained in our first letter. The conference we propose would have a preparatory character to clarify the foundations of rapprochement of our parties; it could, for example, work out a draft of a permanent treaty.

On our part, three delegates for negotiations with you have been appointed by the CC, which is in our party the highest instance between congresses. We believe that you will appoint representatives for negotiations with us from the corresponding instance of your party, or from that institution which has the right and appropriate authority to conduct such negotiations.

We propose the congress abroad. The location is a secondary matter, though Vienna would be more convenient for us. Our CC appointed delegates for negotiations with your party, and not with the social-democratic party of Poland and Lithuania, therefore there can be no question of the participation of delegates from the s.d. party of Poland and Lithuania."—

Here are all the documents regarding the P.P.S.'s appeal to our party; it personally seems to me that the P.P.S.'s proposal, on condition of refusing to invite delegates from Polish social-democracy to the projected conference, cannot be accepted by us. As for the Finns' proposal, we can respond to it with principled agreement to a preliminary conference. Therefore, I think our resolution could be formulated as follows:

"The R.S.-D.R.P. in principle agrees to a preliminary conference with representatives of various revolutionary and oppositional parties—for agreement on certain particular questions."

As for Comrade Martov's proposal to organize a preliminary conference of only social-democratic groups, it is hardly expedient, because besides the Bund, Polish social-democracy, and the "Proletariat" party, there are still social-democratic organizations on the borderlands, the attraction of which is hardly convenient, and not inviting them to the conference could offend them.

**Glebow.** There are two proposals of a completely different character: the P.P.S.-ites made the inviolability of Poland a necessary condition and refuse to invite Polish social-democracy to the conference. There is nothing for us to talk with them about. With Comrade Lenin's attitude toward the Finns' proposal, I fully agree, but I do not agree with his attitude toward Comrade Martov's proposal. I would advise, in addition to the groups mentioned by Comrade Martov, also to invite the Latvians. I do not agree with Lenin's opinion about the inexpediency of a preliminary conference of social-democrats. At the conference with other oppositional and revolutionary groups, it is very important for us to maintain uniform tactics. Life itself is already forcing us to act together. Russia is now experiencing an important moment: a famine is looming, a crisis is approaching, and it is important for social-democrats not only to confer about the war, but also about a joint plan of action in general.

**Axelrod.** As far as I know, the Latvians currently have two fractions; one counts itself as s.d. and accuses the other of flirting with the SR's, of tending toward terror, etc. How true this is—I cannot judge. In any case, we need to make inquiries on this score to clarify our relations with both fractions. I fully agree with Martov's proposal. A preliminary conference is of great significance, if only to protect ourselves from unexpected moves from the P.P.S.

**Glebow.** Regarding the mood of the Latvians, I must say that our relations with them have changed for the better since the old-timers—more mature and more balanced social-democratic elements of the Latvian party—returned to them.... Although we know that they transported "Liberation" and SR literature, nevertheless we must say that they do not attach much significance to this circumstance, since they transport exclusively for commercial reasons. The Bundists do the same, who, for example, last year delivered three poods of Liberation literature to some provincial zemstvo assembly.

**Lenin.** Since, by Comrade Axelrod's remark, the Latvians have two fractions, I would like to ask Comrade Glebow—which exactly fraction does he propose to invite to the conference, and which fraction is the CC currently dealing with?

**Glebow.** I have in mind the oldest one, which has committees in Libau, Mitau, and Riga and calls itself social-democratic.

**Martov.** It seems Comrade Glebow is speaking of the one that was just accused of tending toward the SR's.

**Glebow.** The Courland Committee two months before the congress discussed the question of merger with the R.S.-D.R.P. and was offended that it was not invited to the congress. Then they reconciled with this and again raised the question of merger with us, with the Libau Committee even threatening that if merger does not take place, it will withdraw from the organization. There is news that even in the Riga Committee there has been division on this question: some members declare that they will leave the Committee if it does not speak affirmatively about the desirability of joining the Russian party. What they say about this fraction's tending toward the SR's is not true.... Perhaps only some sympathy for them is noted.

**Martov.** Rolau, who belongs to this fraction, undoubtedly belongs to the SR's.

**Lenin.** Comrades Axelrod and Martov assert that the Latvians have two fractions. [Martov: two tendencies.] Now it turns out that we must meet at a conference with the one that clings to the SR's, to "Liberation," and tends toward terror, by Comrade Axelrod's words, while the second fraction is very weak. We need to find out more precisely how matters stand. If this is only two tendencies, then it does not concern us, and we unite with the existing Latvian party. If, however, factions exist there, then we might end up in a very awkward position, making a bad choice. It is necessary to clarify in advance both the strength and the direction of these factions. As for the Caucasus, in my opinion, it is necessary to attract it to the conference. To do this, we must find out whether there are social-democratic organizations there that could go with us hand in hand.

**Plekhanov.** Not more than a week ago I read a report, and a Latvian approached me. He asserts that they have two organizations: his group has an orthodox-Marxist character, and they want to unite with the Russian party, while the other organization does not want to. He spoke on behalf of the Courland group and asked immediately for an answer. I said that I would report his proposal to the Council, and in the meantime offered him to write a report. He promised, although he has not yet submitted one. Regarding the Finnish conference, I must say that it can take place very soon, and if we do not give an answer in time, this conference will take place without us. They have long been in close relations with the SR's and even transport literature to them. Their initiative is known to international social-democracy—not for nothing did they approach Guede and Lafargue. A representative of theirs could come to me any day, and it is necessary to prepare an answer for him.

**Axelrod.** Regarding the Latvians, I have the following information: Walter wrote in the *Arbeiter Zeitung* and conducted a polemic with the SR's. Another—Skubik—held a middle, undefined position. Rolau, on the other hand, always leaned quite definitely toward the SR's. As long as there was no other fraction, one could tolerate this one. But once another, perhaps more orthodox, appeared, it is necessary before uniting with one or the other of them to make precise inquiries about them. As for the Caucasus, it is not entirely clear to me: didn't Caucasian representatives enter the party? Is there perhaps such organizations there that remained outside the party? [Lenin: yes!]. In that case, it seems to me that we should not involve ourselves in the internal relations of the Caucasians; we should not enter into relations with an organization that plays the role of a rebel in relation to the Caucasian Union.

**Martov.** Besides the Caucasian Union, there are several organizations on the Caucasus. Of them the Georgian is purely nationalist, united with the SR's and has no relation to the workers' movement. Regarding the Armenian Federalist, so-called social-democratic organization, there cannot even be such doubt as about the Lithuanian party, which is a copy of the P.P.S. and nevertheless represents a workers' party, which cannot be said about the Armenian organization. There is a third organization—the Henchakists. Negotiations are already underway with it about entering our party. If these negotiations have not been completed by the time of the preliminary conference, it can still be invited to the conference. Its only shortcoming is lack of activity. The question about the Latvians is difficult to clarify. We need to find out—is there one organization or two; if there are two organizations, then I would propose inviting both: it is difficult to choose the more Marxist one. If they have sympathies for the SR's, this stems from their insufficient maturity as yet.

**Lenin.** I agree with the proposal to invite both Latvian organizations. As for the Armenian-Federalist organization, after the explanations given by Comrade Martov about this organization's closeness to the SR's, the question of inviting it to the conference cannot arise. Then it is unclear to me what Comrade Plekhanov's proposal consists of, which insists on the necessity of an immediate answer to the Finns.

**Glebow.** The Latvians are indeed a class party of the proletariat. In the countryside they have enormous connections among farmworkers. If we do not now invite them to our conference, we may throw them into the arms of the SR's.

**Axelrod.** In view of the imminent appearance of the Finn, we need to adopt two resolutions. One resolution in case there is little time before the conference, and a second resolution—if there is sufficient time. One can even give the Finn a conditional answer, making participation in their conference dependent on the preliminary conference we are planning.

**Plekhanov.** I have not made definite proposals, but definite resolutions must be adopted. If, for example, the Finn appears tomorrow and says the conference is set for a week from now, what answer should we give him? To say no would be disadvantageous from an international perspective. We could even express principled agreement to the conference, but on condition of postponing it for a set period, in view of the convening of our preliminary conference. Perhaps they will agree to this. If they insist on immediate convening of their conference, then perhaps we will have to yield. In general, we can adopt several resolutions, even conditional ones. Regarding the Latvians, we must distinguish two questions: 1) about inviting them to the preliminary conference and 2) about their entry into the party. The conference question has already been decided affirmatively.

**Martov.** Even if the conference is in a week, social-democrats can gather a day or two before the conference and agree among themselves.

**Plekhanov.** Completely agree with Comrade Martov. Does Comrade Lenin not wish to make some definite proposal regarding the Caucasians?

**Lenin.** I would propose to inquire of the CC's agent located in the Caucasus whether he considers it useful to attract to the conference those social-democratic fractions that are not part of the party.

**Martov.** Lenin's proposal is formally quite normal, but raises some doubts. It is desirable that there not be hegemony of Federalist elements at the preliminary conference. Inviting them, we would play into the Bund's hands. These are exactly the elements that the Bund would like to unite around itself. It is desirable that this conference be attended by strictly social-democratic groups. There is no point in binding ourselves with such organizations as the Georgian and Armenian, printing abominable articles about the congress or proclamations in which they speak of the "chauvinistic" tendencies of the Russian s.d. party. If the invitation of these comes from the Bund, we will not object to this; but to take such initiative ourselves—is not worth it. The question of Federation will undoubtedly be raised at the conference, and it is important for us to agree beforehand on what position to take regarding this question. If the invitation is to come from the Bund, we will not oppose it; but to take such initiative ourselves on our part is not necessary. The question of Federation will certainly be raised at the conference, and it is important for us to agree beforehand on what position to take regarding this question. Against inquiring of the CC's agent—and also of the Caucasian Union—I have nothing. But we ourselves should take care to ensure that the most reliable social-democratic elements are invited to the conference.

**Glebow.** I also speak against inviting the social-democratic Federalist Armenian organization, about which alone one can speak. It arose after the congress, having separated from the Baku Committee, and immediately set itself the goal of fighting the Russian s.d. party. By inviting it, we would only support it.

**Martov.** Besides, we would spoil our relations with the Henchakists in this case. The Armenian organization is not only Federalists, but also pure nationalists.

(Five-minute break)

**Plekhanov.** Perhaps Comrade Lenin will submit his resolution regarding the Caucasians?

**Lenin.** After the clarifications made by Comrade Glebow, I withdraw my proposal.

**Martov** (reads his resolution). I) "The Council of the R.S.-D.R.P. in principle accepts the proposal of Mr. Z. about a conference of representatives of opposition and revolutionary parties operating in Russia, proposing on its part that the conference initiators postpone it until July 25, n.s." * II) "At the same time, the Council decides to address the P.S.-D., "Proletariat," the Bund and the Latvian Baltic workers' organization with a proposal to organize a preliminary conference, both for discussion of the tactics that all social-democratic organizations should adopt at the above-mentioned international conference, and for discussion of possible joint political actions on behalf of all social-democratic organizations in Russia."¹

One must be wary that the same thing does not happen as occurred at the Georgian conference, where they decided to vote by individual votes. It is necessary to decide that social-democrats will leave at the first attempt at anything of that kind. Besides, it is necessary to decide in advance that principled decisions be adopted only with unanimity.

**Lenin.** I would ask for two clarifications: 1) how representation at the conference is projected and 2) to which exactly fraction will we direct our invitation.

**Martov.** We will address the official Latvian party.

**Lenin.** It seems to me that the requirement of unanimity in deciding questions of principle would be superfluous. I cannot imagine anyone from the social-democrats not leaving if some monstrous decision were adopted at the conference.

**Glebow.** I support Comrade Martov's proposal on unanimity.

**Plekhanov.** I would propose to replace in the resolution the name of the conference initiator with a letter N for reasons of conspiracy.

**Martov.** I propose to limit the field of principled questions at the conference to the question of democratic constitution, regarding which the opposition elements will have to take a completely definite position before we can talk further with them. This would serve us as a certain guarantee against nationalists and moderate Finns. Such a requirement would not be an empty formality, but would have meaning as a written statement of the minimum conditions on which one could agree to the projected conference.

**Lenin** considers such a limitation inconvenient.

**Martov.** I myself wavered at first—whether to limit the field of principled questions at the conference. Certain measures for further joint activity could be acceptable, such as a general bureau. But there is a danger that this conference could take on the appearance of a non-party committee, which is already completely undesirable. By our limitation we will show that we do not intend to bind ourselves organizationally and that we can enter with them only into separate agreements on particular occasions.

**Axelrod.** I want to ask Comrade Martov for clarification: does the proposed limitation mean that, speaking exclusively about democratic constitution, we do not want to go beyond the bounds of the question of struggle with autocracy?

**Martov** explains that he indeed meant to indicate the framework within which this question should be discussed.

**Plekhanov.** I think that this will be only an instruction for our delegates.

**Lenin.** Then only the first part is declared to the Finns?

**Martov.** Yes, only the first part. (Reads the third part of the resolution (instruction)). "The representatives of the Russian Party at the inter-party conference are obliged to strive to ensure that the conference does not go beyond the bounds of a meeting between representatives of different parties and consequently that no decision could be adopted except unanimously. They must insist that the conference be limited to principled statements of solidarity of all revolutionary and opposition parties in the struggle against tsarism; they must strive to ensure that in these principled statements, the democratic constitution be clearly emphasized as the immediate goal of the struggle against autocracy." (Reads then the resolution on inviting the s.d. Latvian organization.) "The Council authorizes the CC of the Party to make inquiries about the second Latvian s.d. organization, and if the CC finds its presence desirable at the general social-democratic conference, proposes to include it too in the list of organizations invited to the latter."

**Plekhanov** puts the first part of Martov's resolution to a vote. (Adopted unanimously.) The second part. (Adopted unanimously.) The third part (instruction). (Adopted unanimously.) The resolution on the Latvian organization is put to a vote. (Adopted unanimously.)

**Plekhanov** raises the question of the number of delegates and the means for sending delegates to the projected conferences.

**Lenin** proposes one.

**Plekhanov** (and after him Martov) proposes two from among the Council members.

**Lenin.** Given the little practical significance of the conference, I think that, to avoid unnecessary expenditure, we could limit ourselves to one.

**Axelrod.** If other organizations send several people, it will be inconvenient if only one representative is delegated from our organization.

**Plekhanov.** It is useful to send two delegates so they can consult with one another.

**Lenin** proposes to tie the conference to the time of the international congress.

**Plekhanov.** In that case, it would be desirable to set the conference for a week before the congress.

[This proposal is accepted, and Lenin proposes that the secretaries insert it into the corresponding resolution.]

**Plekhanov** puts the question of the number of delegates to a vote.

**Lenin** votes for one delegate; all others—for two. — The decision is adopted to delegate two.

**Axelrod.** If the conference is postponed until the congress, one could send three.

**Axelrod's** proposal is put to a vote.

(Adopted by four votes against one (Lenin)).

**Martov** proposes to have the CC and the EO choose one delegate each for the time of the conference.

**Lenin** agrees with Martov's proposal, and regarding the third, proposes to choose him just before the conference from all Council members.

**Martov.** If the conference is postponed until the international congress, then one could send more than three, namely, as many people as find it possible to go.

(Adopted unanimously.)

**Plekhanov** puts the second item of the agenda up for discussion—on the international congress.

**Lenin** reads the resolution of the Second Extraordinary Congress of the Party on the international congress.

**Plekhanov.** We need to decide how our representation will be organized.

**Martov.** At past congresses there have always been too many Russian delegates, which seemed somewhat ridiculous. But unfortunately, we cannot allow there to be too few at the forthcoming congress. We will have to represent the Russian section together with the Bund and even with the SR's; if we have too few delegates, they will outvote us. That is why we must, first of all, be concerned about a large number of mandates. According to the statute, the Council of the Party represents the party as a whole. Thus, as the official representative of the party, it should delegate from itself one or two representatives. Then the Council should address all organizations with a proposal either to send delegates or to send it mandates. If we appeal in the press with a proclamation, pointing to the importance of all organizations being represented, then the number of our votes at the congress will be sufficiently large.

**Lenin.** I ask for clarification of whether it is convenient to send delegates both from the Council and from individual organizations. Are there analogous examples from the practice of other countries at previous congresses? It seems to me that such a method of representation presents known disadvantages both in principle and in practice (from the viewpoint of finance, technique, etc.). Would it not be better for the Council to represent [the party] *in corpore*—in full force. I cannot imagine that we could be outvoted. After all, they cannot deprive our party of a vote!

**Axelrod.** I am aware that the German party presents representatives both from the whole party and from local organizations. One must pay serious attention to the danger of being outvoted.

**Martov.** At all congresses voting is by countries. Where there is a majority and a minority—one vote is submitted from the majority, one—from the minority. Since in our section there will be SR's and we must distance ourselves from them, we will have to vote together with the Bundists, the P.P.S., etc., and within this division we could be outvoted.

**Plekhanov.** To achieve separate representation will be completely impossible. Bundists will claim everyone: Ukrainians, etc. elements. Thus we may find ourselves in the minority, especially since we cannot in any case match them in the number of delegates. This is of course inconvenient, but can we achieve a majority without resorting to opportunism?... Besides, we must also remember that Amsterdam is a very expensive city.

**Lenin.** If Comrade Plekhanov says that we will not be able to achieve separate representation of the party at the congress, and sending a large number of delegates to the congress will be very costly, and we in any case will not be able to match the Bundists in this regard, then it will be more noble if the party is represented at the congress only by the Council.

**Martov.** I have not been understood. I am not for a mass of delegates. There should be many mandates, which can be concentrated in the hands of a few people. One can propose that organizations give their mandates to the Council. The Council undertakes to pay only for its own delegates. If some committee wishes to send a delegate on its behalf, it should send him at its own expense.

**Plekhanov** explains that this has moral significance, but cannot have significance in the count of votes.

**Axelrod.** I am interested in Lenin's proposal. I think we need to make an attempt to defend the autonomy of our party at the congress. Our position is completely different from that of parties in other countries. In all countries there is one socialist party—with several, perhaps, fractions. We, on the other hand, have several parties. Above all, we need to distinguish ourselves from the SR's. Bundists represent a separate nationalist organization, not a fraction. It is necessary to try to demarcate ourselves from them as well. As for other social-democratic organizations, they are very insignificant. Well, they were always free to merge with our party! Their number may reach only a few dozen, and under such conditions, of course, they can always outvote us.

**Martov.** To achieve this, one would have to restructure the entire congress.... And this is of course unattainable.

**Plekhanov.** I think that we cannot be outvoted. We will have at least one vote in any case! We will make an attempt to completely remove the SR's, although it is difficult to count on success. But then we retain the possibility of demanding that our protests be entered in the minutes regarding the fact that the SR's turn out to be united with us in one section; by this we will emphasize in the minutes our attitude toward the SR's.

**Martov.** So we will not achieve autonomy, and at the congress one vote will be the SR's and one—the social-democratic organizations. How then will questions be decided within sections? But it is inconvenient for us to vote by nations. If with a small number of delegates we have many mandates, they will not be able to outvote us. That is why I propose that alongside the Council each of the organizations send it its mandate.

**Axelrod.** It seems to me that we should already now enter into correspondence with the bureau to acquire more influence at the congress.

**Plekhanov.** I would think that the editorial board of the E.O., in order to prepare public opinion at the congress, could place in the foreign press a whole series of articles about the SR's. One could even cite that article from *Zemlya i Volya* in which the SR's directly declare that they are hostile to the German social-democrats. This was 25 years ago, but it will still make an impression, and we will be able to pose the question to the SR's—if they have changed their views now, why do they retain their old name.

**Martov** (reads the resolution). "All organizations of the party are invited to send their mandates for the Amsterdam congress to the Council of the Party, which will organize its representation as a unified whole.

The Party Council invites all organizations to send no later than August 1, n.s., a report on local activity for the compilation of a general report." — I emphasize that the Council, having received mandates, will still represent the party as a whole. Then I propose now to choose a person to whom all materials would flow for the compilation of the report.

**Plekhanov.** I think it is necessary to point out that it is necessary to send the reports as soon as possible. We are one of the few who have delayed with the report, and we have already been reminded of this from the bureau. It is necessary today to entrust someone with compiling the report. It is impossible to wait for reports from committees.

**Lenin.** Besides, it is hardly likely that we will succeed in contacting all organizations to get mandates. In view of this, I propose that the Council, without contacting individual organizations, could, if necessary, represent each of them individually...

**Martov.** If one tries, it is possible to succeed in contacting. In any case, one must make this attempt. Besides, the E.O. has already proposed that Dana compile the report.

**Lenin.** I propose to entrust the compilation of the report to Comrade Dana and Glebow. (Adopted unanimously.)

**Martov** reads his resolution in amended form: "All organizations of the Party are invited to send their mandates for the Amsterdam congress to the Council of the Party, which will organize its representation as a unified whole."
(Adopted unanimously.)

**Plekhanov** puts up for discussion the third question—on relations with the P.S.-D. and "Proletariat."

**Lenin** considers this question already exhausted in the discussion of the first item of the agenda.

**Plekhanov.** Kulchitsky was here and told me that "Proletariat" would like to enter the party. I promised to relay this proposal to the Council. Kulchitsky, as he was leaving, said that another comrade would come for further negotiations, but this other comrade has not yet appeared. We need to decide this question, although, incidentally, it could be postponed.

**Lenin.** Would it not be advisable to ask the CC to gather information about the strength of these organizations on the ground? If our union with "Proletariat" can worsen our relations with the P.S.-D., then we must approach this step very cautiously.

**Adopted:** "to postpone the decision on the 'Proletariat' question and to propose that the CC gather information on this question."

**Martov.** Although the question is postponed, it would be desirable to work out here some directives for further steps. I asked Kulchitsky how "Proletariat" would regard it if our party convened a conference for the purpose of uniting them. Kulchitsky said that "Proletariat" would regard this proposal sympathetically. The Polish social-democrats, on the other hand, say that such a proposal could provoke a split among them, since a dispute is now raging over the conduct of their delegates at the congress, in view of which they asked us not to hurry them with a decision on this question. — I think that the Polish social-democrats should be considered the nearest ally, and therefore, without agreeing beforehand with them, it is inconvenient to enter into close relations with "Proletariat."

**Plekhanov.** Could our close relations with "Proletariat" interfere with our rapprochement with Polish social-democrats?

**Martov.** Yes, because Polish social-democrats do not consider "Proletariat" true Marxists, although last year they did not unite with "Proletariat" for the same reasons that they did not unite with us at the congress.

**Lenin.** The final decision on this question depends on what information the CC gives us. In any case, we must take into account Comrade Martov's considerations.

**Plekhanov.** So the third question is exhausted. The fourth question—on Latvian organizations. Since Comrade Glebow has been asked to gather information about them, let us proceed to the fifth item of the agenda—on the Armenian organization and the "Henchakists."

**Martov.** The "Henchakists" have approached the CC with a declaration of their desire to enter our Party. Recently, Nazarbek has approached me. He has founded a new newspaper, coming out twice a month and standing on the basis of the s.d. program. He declares that they could be satisfied with the solution of the national question that the Russian party gives. If we do not consider Turkish Armenia, they consider the unification of everyone in the Russian Social-Democratic Workers' Party possible, setting as their immediate goal the overthrow of autocracy. He is confident that such a formulation of the question will never meet with resistance from them—perhaps somewhere in America.... He is planning complete separation of his party from Turkish Armenians and joining the Russian party. After his appeal to the CC, he received a proposal from the Caucasian Union to enter the editorial board of the Union's organ. Such an answer, by his words, puts him in an awkward position. Having accepted this proposal, he would push his organization away from rapprochement with the Russian party, while he is confident that without much difficulty their organ, together with the organization and monetary means, could enter the Russian party. Therefore, he asks not to insist on the proposal of the Caucasian Union. I repeat, his organ is Marxist, and in practice this organization manifests itself as social-democratic—both in strikes and in demonstrations.... Already in two months he hopes to bring a document about the dissolution of his organization and its entry in full into the R.S.-D.R.P. Therefore, I propose to express a wish for the joining of the "Henchakists" to our party and to entrust the CC (jointly with the E.O.) to decide the question about their organ.

**Lenin** agrees with Comrade Martov's proposal and notes that control must be exercised over the conduct of the "Henchakists'" newspaper, which has not always been social-democratic.

**Martov.** They themselves ask for control over their newspaper. It will only be difficult to deal with the language. (Reads his resolution.) "The Council authorizes the CC to enter into agreement with the Caucasian Union of the party on the adoption into its composition of those organizations of "Henchakists" who wish to enter the party. At the same time, the Council authorizes the CC to propose to the Caucasian Union to take over—when the "Genghak" organization proposes it—its organ, published in Bulgaria."

(The resolution is adopted unanimously.)

**The Chairman** declares the session closed.

## II.
## SECOND SESSION.

**[June 18 (o), 1904. Geneva.]**

**Plekhanov** raises the question of the right to recall from the Council.

**Martov.** I already raised this question at the last Council session. In view of the conflicts that have occurred in the Council, it is important that, without waiting for new conflicts, we define what authority the delegates to the Council have. One member was elected by the congress itself and only by it can be recalled. The other four are delegated from two collegiums. Therefore, the collegiums can recall them and consider them responsible before themselves. If this were not so, we would have some sort of strange indefiniteness, permanence; in all other elected collegiums, members can be recalled by the congress. But if we allow that representatives, for example, of the editorial board cannot be recalled from the Council by it, then we must also allow that they cannot be recalled by a new editorial board, and consequently not by the congress either. This results in something like lifelong power. On the other hand, representatives must be sufficiently authoritative in the eyes of the institution that sends them. With non-replaceability, nothing guarantees us such authority. Finally, the purpose of the Council is to unite and coordinate the two central institutions. This is only possible if representatives on the Council express the opinions of exactly those collegiums that send them. Therefore, I propose the following resolution: "The Council decides: Members of the Council, with the exception of the one elected by the congress, are delegates of the two central institutions (E.O. and CC) whose activities the Council must coordinate and unite (§ 5). Not being in direct dependence on the Party Congress, these four members of the Council can be removed by the institutions that represent them and are responsible before them."

**Lenin.** Comrade Martov noted that he makes his proposal independently of concrete cases and only to prevent future conflicts. Therefore, I too will not touch upon any concrete cases, and if this resolution is calculated exclusively to establish a certain rule for the future, then I will not argue against it. Perhaps it would be more useful to shorten it and reduce it to the right of the collegium to recall its representatives, and delete the phrase about non-responsibility to the congress.

**Martov.** I have nothing against this. Thus we get the following resolution: "The Council decides: Members of the Council, with the exception of the one elected by the congress, are delegates of the two central institutions (E.O. and CC) whose activities the Council must coordinate and unite (§ 5). These four members of the Council can be removed by the institutions that represent them and are responsible before them."

(Adopted unanimously.)

**Plekhanov.** The next question—on co-optation into committees and the right of the CC to introduce new members.

**Martov.** There are two questions here: these questions were raised in the editorial board by separate reports of separate episodes on the basis of different interpretations of the statute. The first question is very simple. The Moscow Committee drew attention to this and asked the editorial board to raise it in the Council. The fact is that the statute requires 2/3 of votes for co-optation. The composition of the Moscow Committee before the conflict consisted of 9 people. For co-optation, therefore, 2/3 is required, and three already spoke in favor of co-optation, and in view of the insignificance of the fraction (2/3), they considered such a number of votes legal for admission. The CC representative agreed with this interpretation. But the minority of the committee [2] considered this interpretation incorrect and threatened to leave the committee. How this conflict ended—I do not know and propose not to examine this concrete case, but only to develop a general rule to guide in resolving such questions in the future. I think that the following rule can be adopted: if 2/3 of votes equal a whole with a fraction less than 1/2, then it need not be taken into account; if the fraction is greater than 1/2, then take it as a unit. In view of this, I propose the following resolution: "Taking into account that in some committees there have been misunderstandings in determining the number of votes required by the statute for co-opting new members, the Council clarifies: in all cases where the 2/3 of the number of members of committees required by § 12 of the statute equals a whole with a fraction, the latter is not taken into account if it equals 1/3, and is equated to a unit if it equals 2/3."

**Lenin.** In this resolution, regardless of its practical conclusion, I would propose to change its beginning. Since on the merits we cannot take definite decisions on the Moscow conflict due to insufficient data, the resolution should not be brought in connection with the preceding conflicts. I would propose that in general in case of an appeal from one part of an organization expressing dissatisfaction with another part—to inform the other interested party of this appeal so as to give it the opportunity to express itself. For example: regarding the Moscow conflict, the matter was not as Comrade Martov states. According to my information, three out of nine wanted to supplement the committee with two new members, to which the rest agreed, but on condition of introducing one more on their side, i.e., preserving, and even strengthening, the preponderant direction. Only a categorical refusal by the majority to agree to this combination caused the Moscow comrades to want to rely on the statute. If one CC member expressed himself in favor of the statute's interpretation by the majority of the committee, then another CC representative expressed himself against such interpretation.— I am stating this only for information and to be entered in the minutes. So, I propose to change the beginning of Comrade Martov's resolution in the sense that it has in view the establishment of a certain rule for the future. On the merits, I would speak in favor of counting every fraction as a unit.

**Martov.** I point out that my interpretation diverges, as from one side, as from the other. If some propose to count every fraction, then others consider it necessary to discard every fraction. Regarding the conflict, I did not bring all the data I had, but only the most essential. I can add the following to what I said before. According to the Moscow Committee majority, when two were proposed to the committee, the minority of the committee, for its part, proposed not one, but also two. The majority agreed to accept both, but on condition of learning in advance who they are, meeting them and determining the degree of their suitability for the committee. They do not consider it possible in general, in co-optation, to take into account the relation of the majority and minority in the committee. There have been no such precedents in the Moscow Committee; the majority of the committee does not make co-optation depend on whether the co-opted belong to the majority or minority.

Then Martov introduces an amendment proposed by Lenin and reads it. — "To prevent future misunderstandings in determining the number of votes required by the statute for co-opting a new member into the committee, the Council clarifies:

In all cases where the 2/3 of the number of committee members required by § 12 of the statute equals a whole with a fraction—the latter is not taken into account if it equals 1/3, and is equated to a unit if it equals 2/3."

**Lenin.** The fact cited by Martov is completely new to me. We have quite definite indications that the minority of the Moscow Committee proposed the co-optation of one of its candidates, not connecting, however, this question with fractional differences. Then, speaking on the merits, I would consider it more correct and more in accord with the spirit of the statute to count every fraction as a unit; nevertheless, the question is so insignificant that I agree to vote for Comrade Martov's resolution.

(Adopted unanimously.)

**Martov.** The second question concerns co-optation into committees at the proposal of the CC. On this basis, an acute conflict arose in the Nikolaev Committee. To a composition of four, a fifth candidate was proposed. In the opinion of the four, this fifth was unnecessary, especially since he had not yet arrived. Then, when a ballot was proposed, opinions were divided (2 votes against 2), and one half declared that the fifth member, sent by the CC, had arrived and would be present at the committee meeting. The other two declared that they were leaving and would not participate in the committee's work until the Council gives clarifications on this conflict. I believe that such conflicts would not have arisen if, in these cases, the question of fractional nuances had not come to the fore—from neither side. The Council must give such clarification on this question as would eliminate the possibility of forceful actions on the part of the CC. I have heard that some committees refuse to accept persons proposed by the CC. It seems to me that such facts can easily be explained by the natural tendency to respond with "no" to a declaration: "I command." [These episodes would lose a considerable part of their acuteness if some committee members did not rely on the CC as an unappealable arbiter in such questions.] If, for example, two Nikolaev comrades did not cite the CC, then the CC could become in this case a peacemaker on the sides. The Odessa Committee has already mentioned this incident as an example of disorganizing activity of the minority. Such phenomena would be eliminated if, according to the Council's clarification, the role of the CC in co-opting new members into the committee were defined as completely passive. On the other hand, the statute, precisely defining the procedure for co-optation and appeal, in case of dissatisfaction with the results of co-optation, establishes that the decisive role in these questions belongs to the Council. That is why I propose the following resolution.

**Martov.** (Reads the resolution.) "Taking into account: 1) that there is disagreement in the party about the right of committees not to accept persons proposed by the CC; 2) that on the basis of these disagreements there arise quarrels, threatening disorganization of the local movement,—

The Council of the Party makes the following clarification of the party statute: "According to § 12 of the statute, committees have the right of co-optation, performed with the presence of a qualified majority (2/3) of votes for the recommended candidate. A complaint may be brought against the decisions on co-optation to the Council, and only it has the right to overturn the decision made.

The party statute places on the CC the duty of care for the distribution of forces in the Party. For the fulfillment of this duty, the CC does not need an unappealable right to introduce the candidates it has designated into the composition of the local organization, which would lead to the complete destruction of their autonomy and, making the responsibility of all central institutions before the party fictitious, could lead to the discrediting of the CC. Recommending a candidate to the local committee, the CC has the possibility, according to § 12 of the statute, to appeal, in case of the committee's refusal, to the Council.

In view of all the above, the Council finds that both in the exact sense of § 12 of the statute and in the whole spirit of our party organization, establishing the responsibility of the CC before the congress of representatives of local committees, the committees of the Party are not obliged to accept into their composition candidates proposed by the CC."

**Lenin.** This incident once again brings to mind the necessity, in case of a complaint from any side, of immediately informing the other side of this so that it could give its clarifications. Only in this way will we be able to make those or other decisions regarding the conflicts that arise. According to our information, the matter stood thus. The Nikolaev Committee consisted of representatives of the majority. Then there was a complete collapse. After this, the CC, or perhaps its representative, appoints three members to the Nikolaev Committee, including two who had never been in Nikolaev, and one already working there and having a whole series of connections. It is possible that this one also was not in Nikolaev at the moment of the collapse. When the CC's candidates arrived in Nikolaev, they found there already two members from the minority wanting to work, and agreed to accept them. That means three co-opted two. That is how matters stood. To verify, one could make inquiries of the committee members, if they have not yet collapsed....

**Martov.** They have already collapsed.— I know that, in sending a complaint to the Council, two members from the minority sent copies of this complaint to two other committee members. Since they have already collapsed, it is unknown whether they received this copy. Where the fifth member is—I do not know.

**Lenin.** According to our information, these facts appear in a completely different light, and it seems to me that two members from the majority acted correctly. The whereabouts of the candidates appointed by the CC cannot serve as grounds for refusing to accept them. Again, I propose a resolution on hearing, in case of a complaint, both sides. Then, regarding the question on the merits, I do not agree with Comrade Martov's resolution in principle. One cannot deprive the CC of the right to introduce its candidates into committees. Of course, every power can be abused, but there is control to fight this evil—in the form, for example, of the press or the activity of the Council, etc. I agree with the opinion that the question of fractional nuances in co-optation of new members should have no place. To this day I am unaware of any fact of forceful introduction of members by the CC. All such talk of forceful introduction forces the CC to be very cautious, and simple tact suggests to it not to use its right.

**Martov.** On the factual side of the matter, I will not speak in view of the fact that there are statements only from one side. I will only say that when mentioning the composition of the committee, members from the "minority" speak of the first two as sent in general from the "majority," namely from the nearest committee—Odessa—and only the fifth member they consider sent by the CC. Our two were also sent by the nearest committee. All four arrived almost simultaneously and very easily agreed with one another. When the collegium was initially formed, there was no mention of a fifth member. Lenin says that he is unaware of any case of forceful introduction of the CC's new members into the committee. I am also unaware of any such case. Only in the League did they insist that members be introduced without a ballot. But we have such information from the former Moscow Committee. A young woman comes to the city to work and demands to be accepted into the committee. At a meeting of the Moscow Committee's member, he told her to wait for the ballot. She replied that she was sent by the CC, that therefore the ballot was not necessary, and that if they did not immediately accept her, she would leave. The incident was resolved by the committee balloting her and accepting her. But her reference to the CC immediately created an irritated atmosphere. Lenin says that the CC cannot fulfill the required distribution of forces if it is not given the right to introduce new members into the committee without balloting them in the committee. I show in my resolution that its duty to distribute forces can be fulfilled without granting him such broad rights: after all, he is given full opportunity to appeal to the Council. The adoption of such a decision should have a beneficial effect on the party, for it will deprive individuals the opportunity, in each particular case, to immediately cite the CC's will. I cannot imagine that under normal conditions there would be distrust of candidates recommended by the CC and that the committee could fear that, consciously or unconsciously, it will be remade. Meanwhile, only this fear causes some to object to the proposed candidates of the CC. The question also arises: with the CC's right to introduce its members into committees, by the time of the congress the composition of committees would be such as the CC desires. This would deprive the congress of its character as the supreme instance before which the CC is responsible. Some say that "it is impossible to fabricate a congress." This expression is unfounded. An artificial selection of committee members is quite possible. An example can be the Nikolaev, where two legal persons, of average intelligence, non-professional revolutionaries, who abroad were not even considered possible to accept into a support group for the party, forced to leave some tiny committee, which rarely sees such forces, two professional revolutionaries, illegal, with a revolutionary past, the best people of our party. Such comrades are forced to wander from city to city to find a place for their abilities. In the Ekaterinoslav Committee there was an analogous fact. Thus we see that compulsory co-optation and compulsory exclusion create one-sided compositions of committees, and in this way, by the time of the congress, the latter will be artificially selected. I do not at all stand for unlimited autonomy of committees, which is evident from my resolution, in which it is said that the CC has the right to appeal the decisions of committees to the Council. First of all, the CC has the right to restore committees in the event of complete collapse. Besides, the CC will always have influence on the committees, thanks to its position in the party. But unlimited right of influence on the composition of committees is absolutely undesirable. As long as there is a threat that the CC can always change the composition of the committee, it will be impossible to eliminate those unbearable, undesirable relations that have been established now. As for Comrade Glebow's idea that connected with the question of co-optation into committees is also the question of the CC's right to restore a collapsed committee, I agree with it and am ready to include in my resolution a corresponding supplement.

**Lenin.** I want to make several remarks. First of all, I would like to point out that the assertion that two candidates were sent to the Nikolaev Committee from Odessa or even by the Odessa Committee is based on some misunderstanding. In all probability, there was an agent of the CC in Odessa, and he took measures to restore the Nikolaev Committee after its collapse. In any case, we know quite definitively that three people were appointed there by no one other than the CC. I say this, by the way, to eliminate any possible misunderstandings. Secondly, Comrade Martov's statement that he too is unaware of any case of forceful introduction of the CC's candidates into local committees is very important—all the more important because the editorial board, with the help of its agents, is fully informed about the situation in the party. As for the young woman who, according to Comrade Martov, demanded to be introduced into the Moscow Committee without a ballot, this example hardly has any significance, since neither the circumstances of the case nor the degree of this young woman's authority are known to us; and besides, this young woman was accepted into the committee anyway after a ballot. Thirdly, it is very important to note the phrase by Comrade Martov that under normal conditions it is impossible to limit the CC's influence on the composition of local committees. If they point to accusations against the CC of artificial "fabrication" of committees, then similar complaints are often made against the E.O. But since in fact there are no such facts, as Comrade Martov himself asserts, and the whole question is reduced only to the possibility of such facts, it seems to me that this latter reason is not sufficient to limit the power of the CC, especially since in practice such a formulation of the question will introduce a certain irritation. — I am ready to agree with Comrade Martov's opinion that the two members of the Nikolaev Committee mentioned are very valuable revolutionary workers—but they were accepted into the committee after all.

In general, it can be said that the CC, in view of all the possible complaints in recent times, acted with the greatest caution and did not hastily use its right to introduce new members into local organizations. And I have nothing against such cautious tactics being temporarily consolidated normatively—to avoid and to end false rumors about the CC.— Then, regarding the question we raised about informing the second interested side in case of a complaint, I propose the following resolution: "The Council of the Party asks party organizations in all those cases when any part of the organization addresses the Council of the Party with a complaint or a question, to immediately communicate the full content of this complaint or question to the other part of the organization, because the Council of the Party needs to have an account of the matter from both sides to resolve the dispute. The same request applies to cases of complaints of one organization against another organization."

**Martov.** Having nothing against this resolution, I propose to expand its content, including in it also cases of complaints of local committees against the CC. [Lenin. This goes without saying: after all, the resolution speaks of complaints of one organization against another.] Comrade Lenin cites my phrase that I am unaware of any case of forceful introduction of CC members into local committees. Yes, I am unaware of any case, except for the case in the Nikolaev Committee. According to the opinion of two members from the "minority," a third comrade was introduced precisely by force. Another limitation of this statement is represented by such cases as the one that took place in Moscow, i.e., a threat to leave if they ballot. Regarding the reference to my words that under normal conditions it is impossible to limit the CC's influence, then I meant not "impossibility," but improbability. I will cite the Org. Committee, which, without having any formal rights, distributed very many people. The same can be said about the organization of *Iskra*. Committees always need people and, thanks to this, are dependent on central institutions. That is why under normal conditions such a resolution would not have been necessary, but for the case of future abnormal conditions we must precisely define the legal question about the CC's relation to the local. Lenin says that accusations of artificial "fabrication" of committees have been made against the E.O. as well. It is necessary for both sides not to be able to cite such facts. This is a great evil, when they try to get into committees only in order to strengthen the position of their direction. The only thing is that the E.O. does not have any compulsory means or rights, and besides, the E.O. has more than once declared that it is against such actions; on the contrary, from the CC side only Comrade Vasiliev spoke definitively on this score at the League congress. The resolution of the Ufa, Perm, etc. committees supports this same point of view. As long as such a resolution is not refuted, as long as there will always exist on one side suspicion that the CC is ready to use its power in such a sense.— In conclusion, I will make one factual point: one of the comrades in the Nikolaev Committee who remained outside—is a former secretary of the Council; he cited the opinion expressed at the Council by Comrade Lenin regarding the impossibility of forceful introduction. [Lenin: very interesting!] But his citation was left without attention, and the fifth member was introduced anyway. On the other hand, irritation immediately subsided as soon as, at a meeting with a CC representative, he said that he did not approve of such conduct. [Lenin: where was this?]

**Martov:** I do not know exactly—it is possible it was in Kharkov, or perhaps in Moscow. In general, in telling about this incident, I was far from the idea that the conflict occurred between the CC and the local committee. On the contrary, I specifically indicated that the conflict occurred between two parts of the local committee.

**Glebow.** The important question of co-optation into committees is being considered here from the viewpoint of abnormal relations within the party. I will take a different point of view. The question is practical, and there can be three cases: 1) Complete collapse of the local committee. In this case, the renewal of the committee's composition lies on the obligation of the CC. On this score, I propose the following resolution: "The renewal of committees after a collapse belongs only to the CC and is the obligation of the CC." But it is not always so simple. 2) After a collapse, one or two members may remain in the committee. I think that one cannot give them alone the exclusive right to restore the committee. Therefore, I propose the following resolution: "In case, if after a collapse there remains no collegium (i.e., there remain one or two members), then the CC belongs a decisive vote on the question of co-option into the committee." 3) The third case—when there is a fully authorized local committee composition, but it turns out to be non-functional. I think that Comrade Martov will agree with me that one can give the CC the right to introduce new members if this is dictated by practical considerations. Sometimes it is important to increase the functionality of the committee at a given moment, while three members of the committee constituting a fully authorized collegium do not wish to introduce new members. In such cases, the CC should be given the right to introduce its candidates, but with the limitation that the number of members it proposes does not exceed 1/3 of the existing composition of the committee. Besides, the legality of these elections can be subject to appeal to the Council. With such limitations of the CC's rights, the autonomy of local committees will not suffer, but functionality will gain. If, on the other hand, we give the CC only the right to appeal to the Council regarding decisions on co-optation, then two or three months may pass before this question is resolved in the Council, and its candidates may by that time already have collapsed. In view of the above, I propose the following resolution: "In case of the existence of a fully authorized collegium, the CC belongs the right to introduce new members in such a number that the number of members introduced by the CC does not exceed 1/3 of the existing composition of the committee. On the introduction of new members by the CC, the local committee has the right to appeal to the Council." (Glebow submits the proposed resolution.)

**Martov.** Glebow makes an error. His resolution does not clarify the statute, but makes a new addition to it, meanwhile the Council cannot legislate. The statute says nothing about the proportion in which the CC can introduce new members into committees; perhaps this would improve the statute, but in any case the congress did not foresee such a rule. Such a point was in my draft statute. I foresaw such a case, and perhaps at the third congress one could agree on this score. But the Council does not have the right to alter the statute. Regarding the first case, we can accept Comrade Glebow's proposal, but the other two we cannot. I completely disagree with the proposal in the third case. The functionality of the local committee can be increased in the case if the CC's candidate works in the local organization, but not being part of the committee, but only under its guidance. If we accept the second point of the resolution, then by analogy the question arises: what to do in case the number of CC members falls to two? Does the CC have the right in such a case to supplement itself, or must it turn to the Council? According to the statute, even if only one person remains in the CC, then he, unfortunately, to the greatest regret, has the right to co-opt others. In the literature, there have already been complaints that the Council expands its rights too much. Consequently, all the more the Council must beware of introducing new points into the statute. So, I stand only for the first point of Glebow's proposed resolution, with the provision, however, that we stipulate the case when the committee is formed after a collapse without the participation of the CC. In this case, the approval of the CC is required.

**Glebow** withdraws his resolution except for the first point, with the addition proposed by Martov.

**Plekhanov** puts Lenin's resolution to a vote.

(Adopted unanimously.)

Lenin's resolution is put to a vote.

(Adopted by four votes against one—Lenin.)

**Glebow** rereads his resolution: "In case of complete collapse of the local committee, its restoration lies on the obligation of the CC. In case of committee formation after a collapse from persons not sent by the CC, the approval of the CC is required."

(Adopted unanimously.)

**Plekhanov.** The next question—on "The Dawn."

**Martov** proposes to first discuss the question of the voting procedure regarding the convening of the congress.

(Martov's proposal is adopted.)

**Martov.** In view of the fact that resolutions are already being received expressing themselves for or against the convening of the congress, I consider it necessary to decide in advance how many votes are required for convening the congress. In view of this, I propose the following resolution: "The Council of the Party, according to § 2 of the statute, is obliged to convene the congress if this is demanded by party organizations having together the right to 1/2 of the votes at the congress. According to note 1 to § 3 of the statute, the right of representation at the congress is enjoyed only by those organizations that were confirmed no later than a year before the congress.

The Council decides that this same period from the time of confirmation of the organization is taken for recognizing its vote in calculating the number of organizations that have expressed themselves for convening the congress. Organizations represented at the Second Congress and elected by it are considered fully authorized in this respect from the moment of adoption of the party statute. For organizations not represented at the Second Congress, the moment of their confirmation is considered:

1) for organizations bearing the name of committee at the time of the Second Congress, the time of the Second Congress, i.e., August 1903;

2) for organizations not bearing that name at that time but acquiring it later—the moment of publication of the first proclamation signed by that name.

In view of this, until August 1904, having the right to decide the question of convening the congress are considered only:

1) CC; 2) EO; 3) Foreign League; 4—17) Committees: Petersburg, Moscow, Kharkov, Kiev, Odessa, Nikolaev, Donskoi, Ekaterinoslav, Saratov, Ufa, Northern, Tula, Tver, Nizhny Novgorod; 18—21) Unions: Mining (Donetsk), Caucasian, Siberian, and Crimean; 22—23) Committees: Poltava, Samara, Smolensk.

With the full authority of these organizations, the number of votes at the congress is 53, and for convening one requires, consequently, 26 votes, i.e., the vote of 13 fully authorized organizations from the number listed here.

The CC is proposed to present to the Council the dates of confirmation of new committees that appeared after the congress."

At the congress, it was not precisely established from what moment to consider an organization fully authorized. It is clear, to me, that from the moment of its consolidation. To participate in the congress requires a year of existence of the organization. In order to have the right to vote on convening the congress, it seems to me, one should establish the same period.

**Glebow.** I agree with Comrade Martov and can only point to newly formed committees: Smolensk and Astrakhan, confirmed in September 1903; Voronezh (Struggle Fund)—in January 1904; Riga—in January